The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Climate change; global warming Options
RuthP
Posted: Thursday, September 6, 2018 6:39:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,150
Neurons: 57,606
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
In reading the many threads on which I am behind, I came across one in Religion and Philosophy (hereafter R&P) which seems to have been hijacked by a discussion on global warming. I thought perhaps it is time we start a discussion here, where such an exchange seems more appropriate. Here it is. (We've done this before. For those who've been around a while--Romany, Epi, AD at least--I think five to ten years ago we had some very vigorous discussions. Someone better at searching than I might even be able to resurrect some of those threads, if applicable.)

Disclosure: I believe the evidence for global warming and for significant anthropogenic (human-sourced) causes is now overwhelming. Evidence has been very strong since the 1990s. No evidence gathered since that time (or before, but it is since that counts) has done anything but increase the certainty. Nevertheless, because this is statistical evidence (as is all evidence in science, even for things we don't think of that way, like gravity or the composition of air), it can be harder to 'see' (in the sense of gut-feeling that this is correct) why the scientific community is so convinced this is true.

A few more disclosures:
One need not be a degreed scientist to evaluate evidence.
One does need to understand some concepts in order to evaluate evidence:
* All science, even things like our understanding of gravity, is predicated on statistics: we never know everything about anything.
* In order for statistics to work, one must have a statistically valid sample.
* Statistics works on data sets (i.e. statistically valid samples): statistics does not work on any individual data point.
* An anecdote may be an individual data point (or, it may not even qualify as that).
* The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes"; it is not data: statistically valid is important.
* Gathering a statistically valid sample (set) of data is time consuming, exacting, tedious, but it allows for the least uncertainty in conclusions.
* Appropriate statistical tests on a statistically valid sample will tell you the degree of uncertainty in the conclusion.
* You do not need to be able to do the statistics yourself; you do need to grasp what the researchers are doing and read results and conclusions.

Links to sources
For those of us who are not climate scientists, I believe this is the best site for background, the issues, the evidence, and all those "why" questions: Union of Concerned Scientists: Global warming science. This takes you in to their global warming science page. The UCS covers other issues as well, and has many more pages on global warming. The further links I'll include in this post are available by clicking around on the site, so if you'd rather go see what you can see, rock on! (As the saying goes.) If you wish to broaden your topics, this is the home page: UCS home page.

An argument regarding CO2 and uncertainty
Two of the concerns that seemed very important in the R&P thread were certainty/uncertainty in data and conclusions, and the importance (or potential lack thereof) of CO2. For the former, try this page: UCS global warming: certainty & uncertainty. And, for why CO2 is the predominant concern, see this page: UCS global warming: why is CO2 so important?

I picked these two issues, because they are very directly related to one another. The evidence for CO2 as a warming agent is strong. Most recently, we have been measuring atmospheric CO2 constantly since the 1950s. We have strong records of CO2 levels and we have strong records of temperatures. (At some point, I'll probably do another post about temperatures and increasing evidence--and thus certainty.)

We have strong data sets for CO2 and temperature since the 1950s. With these, it is possible to show an undeniable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Understand, a correlation does not prove cause and effect. It is, strictly speaking, not possible to prove cause and effect, given we are dealing with the world. To statistically prove cause and effect, we would need two earths, exactly the same, on one of which we would raise the CO2 levels and on the other we would maintain them as constant. Ain't gonna happen.

What we can do, is establish a correlation which is very strong and we can try to control for as many other factors as we can consider. We control for these factors, which range from sun spots to heat islands (the effects of raised air temperature over cities, with all their concrete and asphalt--climate scientists spend a good bit of statistical energy ameliorating/reducing/removing the effects of these falsely high temperatures from global temperature estimates), to other constituents of global warming. These can be accounted for with statistics. Yes, there is uncertainty with all of this. Statistics, however, allows the calculation of the degree of that uncertainty.

OK, back to CO2. We have a very strong data set for over 50 years now. "But wait!" You say. "50 years is but a nonce in the grand scheme of the Earth." This is true. So, we look for other ways to estimate CO2 levels. We use tree rings and growth. Combined with temperature and rainfall data this gets us pretty good estimates for another 100-150 years. Tree rings without supporting information gets us back centuries. Atmospheric bubbles (in which CO2 may be measured) are obtained from antarctic ice cores. These overlap the tree ring data and refine it. They also go back millennia (800,000 years). We can gather the same kind of data today, but the problem is that these methods all have greater uncertainty in the the data they provide than does measuring actual CO2 and actual temperature. If one draws a line to represent the values over time, one should also draw a range above and below the line representing the uncertainty. The distance between the estimate and the upper and lower bounds (the standard deviation) will widen the further back one goes and the fewer sources for estimate one has. Nevertheless, even with increased uncertainty, the trending is clear.

More links and sources
NASA has done a lot of work on this, and is a good source of reliable information. Here is a link: NASA: Climate change evidence. Here's another NASA page: NASA: Concensus on climate change. Back to the UCS: UCS: concensus on global warming.

And, finally, because some are skeptical about scientists, perhaps this will help: US Defense Department: 2014 Acquisition map for adapting to climate change (PDF). Even the military is convinced it needs to plan.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2018 2:08:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,725
Neurons: 51,343
RuthP wrote:
In reading the many threads on which I am behind, I came across one in Religion and Philosophy (hereafter R&P) which seems to have been hijacked by a discussion on global warming. I thought perhaps it is time we start a discussion here, where such an exchange seems more appropriate. Here it is. (We've done this before. For those who've been around a while--Romany, Epi, AD at least--I think five to ten years ago we had some very vigorous discussions. Someone better at searching than I might even be able to resurrect some of those threads, if applicable.)
Well, I have to begin somewhere, so it might as well be here.

Disclosure: I believe the evidence for global warming and for significant anthropogenic (human-sourced) causes is now overwhelming. And I believe it is not. [emphasis added by me]
Evidence has been very strong since the 1990s. No evidence gathered since that time (or before, but it is since that counts) has done anything but increase the certainty. Nevertheless, because this is statistical evidence (as is all evidence in science, even for things we don't think of that way, like gravity or the composition of air), it can be harder to 'see' (in the sense of gut-feeling that this is correct) why the scientific community is so convinced this is true.
What's the old saying? There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. As has been proven on many occasions, nearly anything can be "proven" with statistics. It's all in how they are manipulated.

A few more disclosures:
One need not be a degreed scientist to evaluate evidence.
One does need to understand some concepts in order to evaluate evidence:
* All science, even things like our understanding of gravity, is predicated on statistics: we never know everything about anything.
* In order for statistics to work, one must have a statistically valid sample.
* Statistics works on data sets (i.e. statistically valid samples): statistics does not work on any individual data point.
* An anecdote may be an individual data point (or, it may not even qualify as that).
* The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes"; it is not data: statistically valid is important.
* Gathering a statistically valid sample (set) of data is time consuming, exacting, tedious, but it allows for the least uncertainty in conclusions.
* Appropriate statistical tests on a statistically valid sample will tell you the degree of uncertainty in the conclusion.
* You do not need to be able to do the statistics yourself; you do need to grasp what the researchers are doing and read results and conclusions.

Links to sources
For those of us who are not climate scientists, I believe this is the best site for background, the issues, the evidence, and all those "why" questions: Union of Concerned Scientists: Global warming science. This takes you in to their global warming science page. The UCS covers other issues as well, and has many more pages on global warming. The further links I'll include in this post are available by clicking around on the site, so if you'd rather go see what you can see, rock on! (As the saying goes.) If you wish to broaden your topics, this is the home page: UCS home page.
Hmm, that's a nice name. I wonder if we have a Union of Unconcerned Scientists. This would be a group who know about global warming but don't really care enough to get involved...(joke)

You could just have easily linked to the Environmental Protection Agency. It seems an odd thing to me to try to prove a position by linking to a site that is filled with people who believe in exactly your position. That's kind of like linking to the Bible to prove God exists.

An argument regarding CO2 and uncertainty
Two of the concerns that seemed very important in the R&P thread were certainty/uncertainty in data and conclusions, and the importance (or potential lack thereof) of CO2. For the former, try this page: UCS global warming: certainty & uncertainty. And, for why CO2 is the predominant concern, see this page: UCS global warming: why is CO2 so important?
More of the same. See Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for evidence of God as the man, Jesus.

I picked these two issues, because they are very directly related to one another. The evidence for CO2 as a warming agent is strong. Most recently, we have been measuring atmospheric CO2 constantly since the 1950s. We have strong records of CO2 levels and we have strong records of temperatures. (At some point, I'll probably do another post about temperatures and increasing evidence--and thus certainty.)

We have strong data sets for CO2 and temperature since the 1950s. With these, it is possible to show an undeniable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Understand, a correlation does not prove cause and effect. It is, strictly speaking, not possible to prove cause and effect, given we are dealing with the world. To statistically prove cause and effect, we would need two earths, exactly the same, on one of which we would raise the CO2 levels and on the other we would maintain them as constant. Ain't gonna happen.
So since you cannot prove a cause and effect, you should not claim humans are altering the planet's climate (the generic "you"). Yet this is exactly the attitude adopted by everyone on your linked sites, and here on the forum, with the exception of me, perhaps.

What we can do, is establish a correlation which is very strong and we can try to control for as many other factors as we can consider. We control for these factors, which range from sun spots to heat islands (the effects of raised air temperature over cities, with all their concrete and asphalt--climate scientists spend a good bit of statistical energy ameliorating/reducing/removing the effects of these falsely high temperatures from global temperature estimates), to other constituents of global warming. These can be accounted for with statistics. Yes, there is uncertainty with all of this. Statistics, however, allows the calculation of the degree of that uncertainty.
And since there is uncertainty, and since no one can account specifically for how humans are accomplishing the alteration of the climate (if we are/can), it makes no sense to speak as if it is fact.

OK, back to CO2. We have a very strong data set for over 50 years now. "But wait!" You say. "50 years is but a nonce in the grand scheme of the Earth." This is true. So, we look for other ways to estimate CO2 levels. We use tree rings and growth. And the initial source of all this has been proven to have been false, as it was ultimately based on a single tree in Canada. This is the so-called "hockey stick" graph. Besides that, tree rings only show growth, not temperature, and growth is related to a number of factors such as fertilizer, water, diseases, insect damage, etc., not just temperature.

Combined with temperature and rainfall data this gets us pretty good estimates for another 100-150 years. Tree rings without supporting information gets us back centuries. Atmospheric bubbles (in which CO2 may be measured) are obtained from antarctic ice cores. These overlap the tree ring data and refine it. They also go back millennia (800,000 years). And have absolutely nothing to do with humans causing the climate to change in any degree, but rather that temperature changes are cyclical.

We can gather the same kind of data today, but the problem is that these methods all have greater uncertainty in the the data they provide than does measuring actual CO2 and actual temperature. If one draws a line to represent the values over time, one should also draw a range above and below the line representing the uncertainty. The distance between the estimate and the upper and lower bounds (the standard deviation) will widen the further back one goes and the fewer sources for estimate one has. Nevertheless, even with increased uncertainty, the trending is clear.
And a trend is just that -- a trend. But you can't say it is caused by humans without proof, or evidence. There is no doubt the Earth has warmed by about one and a half degrees. The question is whether humans have caused it, or if it is a natural cycle.

More links and sources
NASA has done a lot of work on this, and is a good source of reliable information. Here is a link: NASA: Climate change evidence. Here's another NASA page: NASA: Concensus on climate change. Back to the UCS: UCS: concensus on global warming.
And I can give you names of NASA scientists and climate scientists from the IPCC that disagree with humans causing climate change. As I said, the science isn't settled.

And, finally, because some are skeptical about scientists, perhaps this will help: US Defense Department: 2014 Acquisition map for adapting to climate change (PDF). Even the military is convinced it needs to plan.

So if I don't believe the scientists who hold to this belief, I should trust the military? Aside from that, the military runs scenarios for all kinds of outlandish possibilities. That doesn't mean they will happen, or that they are true just because someone makes a plan for a future contingency.

All you have done here is tell us what we already know -- that some scientists (who, by the way, get their funding from folks in government who also are believers) believe in anthropogenic climate change, usually through generic implication rather than evidence based facts.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2018 3:59:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Rather than post on the Philosophy & Religion thread, I am going to make one last effort to discuss reasonably with FD about climate change on your thread, if you don't mind Ruth. First is the post to which I am responding.

FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:

FounDit wrote: My opinion doesn't need to be "scientific" to be valid, (Huh? We are discussing science! So you've reviewed every abstract written about it? No? A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!) and until there is absolute proof presented to the general public, and particularly to me, my opinion is just as valid as that of anyone else on the topic, especially when I have examined the evidence presented so far. If my opinion differs, then it is they who have failed to present convincing evidence.

Back to absolute proof again! lol

Your opinion is as good as anyone else on the topic? Like researchers who have spent a dozen years in post-doctoral studies specific to climate change and many years working in the field?

Huh? Wow. What arrogance. What hubris! If we can't convince you with the arguments of climate researchers, our and their argument fails. That says nothing about your abilty to be able to be flexible or even understand the arguments

It would really help if you applied just the tiniest bit of reasoning to your responses. Yes, my opinion is just as valid as yours because we are both members of the public, and neither of us are scientists. Both of us have to rely on real scientists to show us why we should believe what they tell us.

Since there are many climate scientists who DO NOT believe humans are responsible for any warming that takes place, I remain skeptical. You believe, apparently, because it suits your political philosophy. I am skeptical because the science isn’t settled.

And yes, I want absolute proof before we run off half-cocked and make laws that affect all of us before we know what we’re doing. What proof would I require? Easy.

1). Just provide a list of ALL the sources of greenhouse gases that may raise the temperature of the planet.

2). List how much of each source is responsible for raising the temperature.

3) Eliminate all sources that are not human made.

4). Once you identify exactly how much humans are responsible for, then show a direct line of cause and effect on how much the temperature has been raised by human activity.

Should be easy to do, right? So if you find those sources and numbers, I will then gladly agree with you and those scientists that say global warming is anthropogenic.

I look forward to reading your data with eagerness and anticipation.





The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2018 4:08:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Response to FD from other thread - Even I as an amateur with a minuscule amount of knowledge about climate change know that the extremely simplistic mathematical equation to which you wish to shrivel the process is not even a beginning. There are gases that reflect at the same frequencies, there are gases that hang around longer than others, there are gases that cause indirect radiative effects, there are chemical reactions that change equations. Etc., etc. etc.... - that is WHY one leaves it to experts who have spent years doing research and know the cycles and interactions. Unlike amateurs, Scientists don't cherry pick their proof - they include all their accumulated knowledge so far. And if you understand their data, the proof you requested is there.

You sarcastically and summarily dismissed an easier way I provided to prove it is anthropogenic - which is for the scientists to measure exactly the two kinds of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere these days - and the present preponderance of CO2 does come from fossil fuel burning. Which last I heard is done by humans. 😀

Plus - An elementary fact is that Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere act like a mirror and reflect back to the Earth a part of the heat radiation, which would otherwise be lost to space. The higher the concentration of green house gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more heat energy is being reflected back to the Earth.

Those two facts are all that is needed to prove anthropogenicity.

Human Contribution - Concerned Scientists link

https://timeforchange.org/cause-and-effect-for-global-warming

:::::

NASA's list - In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ Lots of other links are there for more explanations and lists of entire groups around the world that have agreed with the consensus of climate experts.

Where's your list of 1300 naysayer climate experts, not weathermen or those who believe the Farmers' Almanac, not even Alec Jones, who are from around the world, not just the US of A? Who are not politically motivated by financial interests as Texans are wont to because of oil, or those who use it to make a political point to get elected because people and corporations do not want to pay for the messes they generate. We learned in kindergarten that one cleans up one's own messes.

:::::

FounDit wrote: My opinion doesn't need to be "scientific" to be valid, and until there is absolute proof presented to the general public, and particularly to me, my opinion is just as valid as that of anyone else on the topic. Emphasis mine.

You did not say your opinion is as good as mine - which is true. You said "anyone else" - and what I noted was that your opinion is NOT as good as climate experts. A very reasonable argument you didn't understand because you did not write clearly.

FounDit wrote: You believe, apparently, because it suits your political philosophy.

One - a founding principle of science you just broke is that correlation is not causation.

Two - how many times do I have to ask that you stop discussing me instead of the facts of the topic? And to stop the ad hominem. You have admitted you DO understand what ad hominem is, yet persist with it against me anyway. When one has to resort to Ad hominem it shows frustration with one's losing arguments. This is your last warning.



The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2018 4:33:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thank you Ruth for starting a fresh thread. I wrote this yesterday pre FD post of today, but fell asleep before I got it posted. Just a few links to add to your collection:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The funny thing is, what skeptics fear is change, that regulations will affect the economy, or corporations are afraid they will be held financially accountable for the noxious emissions they produce. Without regulations, corporations are not going to pay for their own pollution voluntarily. And I don't find it unreasonable that those who pollute for profit should be made to clean up their own messes. We learned that in kindergarten.

As you noted Ruth, the world has already moved on past the skeptics. Positive change is already happening. Those regulations have promoted a green energy industry that is beneficial to economies that have implemented them, and green energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels. Cheaper? Guess which will win.

One of the main perks of those regulations being put into place is a cleaner air/water/ environment where human life can still remain viable. Being able to breathe and have clean water seem like pretty good reasons for ordinary citizens of all countries to adopt a few changes like using different light bulbs or recycling.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/household-carbon-footprint-calculator

Skeptics fail to see the long term picture that jobs and economies are of no value in an unsustainable earth system.

It is a challenge we have a good chance of winning if an intelligent species puts its minds and energy into mitigation instead of into blocking through skepticism the efforts of those willing to accept the reality already upon us.



The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2018 5:12:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
These two photos from above links were meant to go with the response to FD.




u


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2018 5:26:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,077
Neurons: 88,459
Ruth wrote:
* You do not need to be able to do the statistics yourself; you do need to grasp what the researchers are doing and read results and conclusions


Hi Ruth, you've made some very good points; however, on this one, I have to disagree, in a way. I would assert that if you are going to argue against the statistics that support that climate change is both happening and has an anthropogenic component, then you have to have a good understanding of what qualifies as valid statistical analysis, and by what methods statistical validity and reliability are increased.

Two of the most abused terms and places where erroneous attacks are made on scientific knowledge are theory and statistics. "That's just a theory", or "Statistics can say anything the author wants them to". There have been exhaustive arguments on here to establish the actual authority of a scientific theory and that is a far easier task than explaining why any one statistical analysis is better than another, or why another may be a complete abuse of the metrics.

I have yet to check out the links you provided and will certainly do so. I am not current on this debate as I think it is pretty foolish. If there is even the remotest chance we are contributing to this phenomenon we ought to be doing the most we can to eliminate even the possibility.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
RuthP
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2018 8:58:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,150
Neurons: 57,606
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
FounDit wrote:
RuthP wrote:
. . .
Disclosure: I believe the evidence for global warming and for significant anthropogenic (human-sourced) causes is now overwhelming. And I believe it is not. [emphasis added by me]
Evidence has been very strong since the 1990s. No evidence gathered since that time (or before, but it is since that counts) has done anything but increase the certainty. Nevertheless, because this is statistical evidence (as is all evidence in science, even for things we don't think of that way, like gravity or the composition of air), it can be harder to 'see' (in the sense of gut-feeling that this is correct) why the scientific community is so convinced this is true.
What's the old saying? There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. As has been proven on many occasions, nearly anything can be "proven" with statistics. It's all in how they are manipulated.

"Lying with statistics" occurs when one misuses statistics. It is not inherent in statistics. Statistics is, in fact, the one way we have of using data samples which is is humanly possible to gather, to reach conclusions about the world as a whole. Misuse of statistics may be intentional; it likely occurs more frequently because people (including scientists, sometimes) think they know more about stat than they actually do and fail to consult a statistician early enough in the process. The "lies, damn lies, and statistics" may be a catchy phrase, but it is largely a facile excuse for disbelieving evidence we dislike.

If one is going to eschew all use of statistics, then one has given up on the methods by which we have made our advances ever since the scientific revolution and the systematizing of research and science. One gives up all proven, accepted methods of establishing objective truth. These methods have proven in multiple ways. First, the mathematics works. Validity of using a sample to closely estimate the characteristics of an entire 'population' (i.e. all the data that exists) may be mathematically derived and the methods proven true. Second, the tests are confirmed empirically. A (completely) known population is sampled; statistical tests are used; the results match the population. Third (and most importantly) proper statistics allows for reproducible results. This means another research group can take another sample and the results they obtain will be the same as those of the first group, within the margin of uncertainty (also called margin of error).

If you decline to believe in scientific data gathering and analysis, with what do you replace it?


. . .

Links to sources
For those of us who are not climate scientists, I believe this is the best site for background, the issues, the evidence, and all those "why" questions: Union of Concerned Scientists: Global warming science. This takes you in to their global warming science page. The UCS covers other issues as well, and has many more pages on global warming. The further links I'll include in this post are available by clicking around on the site, so if you'd rather go see what you can see, rock on! (As the saying goes.) If you wish to broaden your topics, this is the home page: UCS home page.
Hmm, that's a nice name. I wonder if we have a Union of Unconcerned Scientists. This would be a group who know about global warming but don't really care enough to get involved...(joke)

You could just have easily linked to the Environmental Protection Agency. It seems an odd thing to me to try to prove a position by linking to a site that is filled with people who believe in exactly your position. That's kind of like linking to the Bible to prove God exists.

The Bible and other faith-based methods of 'knowing' are not in question here. If you wish to support climate denial with Faith in your Beliefs, then there is no discussion. Such faith-based talk does belong in Religion and Philosophy. I had thought the discussion was to be based in evidence and science.

The NASA site, UCS, IPCC, various university-based research groups in many fields have contributed data. NASA and IPCC support open databases, available to anyone wishing to analyze the data and create their own, testable models for what is happening. This Advancing the Science of Climate Change, by National Acadamies is a matter of science and evidence, not faith and belief.


An argument regarding CO2 and uncertainty
Two of the concerns that seemed very important in the R&P thread were certainty/uncertainty in data and conclusions, and the importance (or potential lack thereof) of CO2. For the former, try this page: UCS global warming: certainty & uncertainty. And, for why CO2 is the predominant concern, see this page: UCS global warming: why is CO2 so important?
More of the same. See Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for evidence of God as the man, Jesus.

See above.

The links are not a discussion of faith. They are a discussion of evidence and likelihood. The existence of doubt is recognized by researchers. Their conclusions (and language) reflect this. Researchers working in climate science have, in fact, tried to regularize the language of doubt, so comparisons between conclusions by different research groups can be made.


I picked these two issues, because they are very directly related to one another. The evidence for CO2 as a warming agent is strong. Most recently, we have been measuring atmospheric CO2 constantly since the 1950s. We have strong records of CO2 levels and we have strong records of temperatures. (At some point, I'll probably do another post about temperatures and increasing evidence--and thus certainty.)

We have strong data sets for CO2 and temperature since the 1950s. With these, it is possible to show an undeniable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Understand, a correlation does not prove cause and effect. It is, strictly speaking, not possible to prove cause and effect, given we are dealing with the world. To statistically prove cause and effect, we would need two earths, exactly the same, on one of which we would raise the CO2 levels and on the other we would maintain them as constant. Ain't gonna happen.
So since you cannot prove a cause and effect, you should not claim humans are altering the planet's climate (the generic "you"). Yet this is exactly the attitude adopted by everyone on your linked sites, and here on the forum, with the exception of me, perhaps.

What we can do, is establish a correlation which is very strong and we can try to control for as many other factors as we can consider. We control for these factors, which range from sun spots to heat islands (the effects of raised air temperature over cities, with all their concrete and asphalt--climate scientists spend a good bit of statistical energy ameliorating/reducing/removing the effects of these falsely high temperatures from global temperature estimates), to other constituents of global warming. These can be accounted for with statistics. Yes, there is uncertainty with all of this. Statistics, however, allows the calculation of the degree of that uncertainty.
And since there is uncertainty, and since no one can account specifically for how humans are accomplishing the alteration of the climate (if we are/can), it makes no sense to speak as if it is fact.

The only science with absolute certainty is mathematics, and people argue over whether math is a science or is mathematics: something different. All science is based on probability. That is what sampling and statistics are all about. It is how everything from pure science to applied sciences like engineering work. If one is unwilling to accept the scientific method, then one may go ahead and decide on faith and belief that one's own feelings tell the truth about the world. Otherwise, one needs to answer the evidence presented with contrary evidence. People proposing that some, so far ill defined, natural cycle accounts for the current variation need to elucidate the past working of the cycle and show how it predicts what has happened recently and provide predictions for the future. The last is critical: it is how we refine our understanding of how the entire climate system works: A model is proposed to explain what has happened. Predictions are made about what will happen. Actual data are gathered over the succeeding years. Differences are noted and changes made to the model to account for the difference. New predictions are made. Rinse and repeat, so to speak. Assuming corrections are correctly made, the accuracy of the model increases with time. If, instead, accuracy of prediction declines, then one concludes a different set of assumptions must be made to explain the discrepancies. This is time consuming work. We are in a system which works on years, decades and centuries. There is a reason biologists pick short-lived species for much of their research: it is possible to compress many generations into one year (or month, or sometimes even day). That is not an option here.

OK, back to CO2. We have a very strong data set for over 50 years now. "But wait!" You say. "50 years is but a nonce in the grand scheme of the Earth." This is true. So, we look for other ways to estimate CO2 levels. We use tree rings and growth. And the initial source of all this has been proven to have been false, as it was ultimately based on a single tree in Canada. This is the so-called "hockey stick" graph. Besides that, tree rings only show growth, not temperature, and growth is related to a number of factors such as fertilizer, water, diseases, insect damage, etc., not just temperature.

I am afraid some of your statements here are incorrect. In general, the "hockey stick graph" was terminology first used to describe a report from `98 by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (Mann, Bradley, Hughes on Penn State public access. Don't be fooled by the `94 date at the top: that's the format version for a PDF; see the References at the bottom). I think the 'hockey stick' description dates from `99 and may refer to an update of the graph. I am beyond positive all this can be found on a Google search. The complaint about tree species, not an individual tree, has to do with the use of data about the Bristlecone pine, which is native only to the US Southwest. It is an extraordinarily long-lived species and some have expressed concern that using data from a species confined to a small region (remember we are talking about global temperature) distorts conclusions. The data, which are published and have been openly available for anyone to analyze, have been analyzed without the Bristlecone. This did not substantively change the outcome.

Since 1998, the data have been analyzed by about a dozen different groups, using different methods. There have also been a few analyses which used other data sets, though how different those sets could be may be an issue: there is only so much data that has been gathered. At any rate, results are largely the same. There is no smoking gun, no radically different result. The twentieth century, and now the beginning of the twenty-first, are far and away the warmest in available historical and prehistorical data.

As far as the concerns about water, insects and fertilizer, the first two pretty well correlate with temperature. Other data are used to confirm water, lake bottom sediment being the primary. Insects infestations are usually considered prima facie evidence of warmer weather, so that does not really provide an alternate explanation. The third, well, unless you are predicating vastly different amounts of animal droppings over the centuries, I'm not sure that's an issue. We are not talking about agricultural cultivation of trees. This is out-in-the-wild stuff.

The tree ring evidence (and it is considered to have a significant margin of error) does not exist in isolation. The previously mentioned lake bottom sediments are another factor. Ice cores provide both CO2 (from gas bubbles) and temperature (from accumulation-winter and melt-summer) layers. Coral reefs are laid down in layers (analogous to tree rings). Reefs can be cored and the layers analyzed. All these methods have provided data for analysis. Supporting evidence which, as far as I know--which is limited--has not been used directly in analyses includes changes in geographic distribution of species of plants and animals. Changes in mating times, nesting times, hatching times (warmer temps can decrease the intervals as well as move mating forward), tree leafing / flowering, fruit set (same issues), time of insect hatches, agricultural yields. Again, these are correlations. Until we have a second Earth, that's what we have to work with. What is noticeable is that nothing contradicts the conclusions of global warming.

One more thing about the hockey stick. The hockey stick effect occurs because this graph is trying to look back over a very long time period. If one were to take the graph and make it much, much longer, giving more horizontal space to each year (or perhaps even just each decade) the extreme appearance of the rise on the right (the most recent time periods) would not appear as steep. It would, however, rise just as much in comparison to the average and to previous temperatures. This is a page NOAA: 2014 has global warming stopped first posted by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in 2014, when we had seen relatively little temperature rise between 1998 and 2012. The page was updated in 2015 (We are starting to see warming) and again this year (We are warming as fast as in the later twentieth). The graph on here is the same as the last part of the hockey stick graph. It represents the period from 1880 to present; the time for which we have measured temperatures. It does not look as extreme because it covers a much shorter time period. There is no doubt, however, which way it is headed. It is long enough in duration to show some of those natural cycles people wish to consider. The overall warming trend runs right over the top. It overwhelms the natural cycles.

This is also what is seen, to a yet greater extent, in the longer term graphs (which are important, because cycles could be longer than the roughly 140 years of measured data): We have natural cycles. We don't understand them all, but we can see their effects even when we are using secondary data (tree rings, ice cores, coral reefs). Since the Industrial Age, increasing with the increasing use of coal power and really taking off with the advent of petroleum product use, a warming trend overwhelms the effect of the previous 'natural' cycles. The correlation between known dates and measured values available for those dates is great. It requires significant evidence of other cause to introduce significant doubt: such evidence is lacking.


Combined with temperature and rainfall data this gets us pretty good estimates for another 100-150 years. Tree rings without supporting information gets us back centuries. Atmospheric bubbles (in which CO2 may be measured) are obtained from antarctic ice cores. These overlap the tree ring data and refine it. They also go back millennia (800,000 years). And have absolutely nothing to do with humans causing the climate to change in any degree, but rather that temperature changes are cyclical.

We can gather the same kind of data today, but the problem is that these methods all have greater uncertainty in the the data they provide than does measuring actual CO2 and actual temperature. If one draws a line to represent the values over time, one should also draw a range above and below the line representing the uncertainty. The distance between the estimate and the upper and lower bounds (the standard deviation) will widen the further back one goes and the fewer sources for estimate one has. Nevertheless, even with increased uncertainty, the trending is clear.
And a trend is just that -- a trend. But you can't say it is caused by humans without proof, or evidence. There is no doubt the Earth has warmed by about one and a half degrees. The question is whether humans have caused it, or if it is a natural cycle.

Again, I am sure as soon as the doubters supply a second Earth for experimentation, absolute proof can be arranged. Until such time, we must make do with scientific method, uncertainty, and correlation. It is either that, or throw up our hands and just say "We don't know nothin'" and quit.

More links and sources
NASA has done a lot of work on this, and is a good source of reliable information. Here is a link: NASA: Climate change evidence. Here's another NASA page: NASA: Concensus on climate change. Back to the UCS: UCS: concensus on global warming.
And I can give you names of NASA scientists and climate scientists from the IPCC that disagree with humans causing climate change. As I said, the science isn't settled.

Of course you can find individuals, including some researchers, who disagree. The science, however, is settled. Overall, between 5% and 3% of scientists worldwide disagree with established climate science and current conclusions. The percentage is less at NASA and IPCC. This means better than 95% of researchers agree with current conclusions (within their margin of error). This is as close to unity as one is ever apt to get. (Remember, President Trump's overwhelming Electoral College margin was 57%. If that qualifies as overwhelming support, the 95% . . .)

To be a bit more serious, the UCS and NASA sites, and the IPCC, all present the evidence for their conclusions. Opponents are largely limited to saying they don't believe it is settled, without giving any valid numbers for why this overwhelming body of evidence is insufficient. There are some opponents who cherry-pick time periods to "prove" the temperature increases were only a momentary blip. This has become markedly less common recently. The big effort for this was in the late `90s, early `00s. Since then, the jump back up into still higher global temperature has made this particular argument completely unconvincing. So, now we are left with only the maybe-humans-didn't-do-this argument.

You are correct: the data we have can show only correlation; they cannot show causation. This is not a factor of insufficient data, it is a matter of inability to control the system. You are back to the two identical Earths problem: there is no control. Nevertheless, the correlation between human activity and carbon dioxide levels and global temperature is stunning. We cannot reasonably expect to influence those supposed natural changes, therefore we are left only with the human contribution to consider. Even if one does not wish to believe humans as the root cause, temperature increase is large, increasing, and undeniable. The sequelae are severe. If we are to try to ameliorate these sequelae, we must act on that which we can influence: human contribution. Possibly (but I doubt it) this would not be enough. (It likely won't be enough, not because we could not have an effect, but because we lack the will to act.)


And, finally, because some are skeptical about scientists, perhaps this will help: US Defense Department: 2014 Acquisition map for adapting to climate change (PDF). Even the military is convinced it needs to plan.

So if I don't believe the scientists who hold to this belief have examined the evidence (This is not the bible; this is the scientific method. Provide contradicting information if you have it.), I should trust the military? Aside from that, the military runs scenarios for all kinds of outlandish possibilities. That doesn't mean they will happen, or that they are true just because someone makes a plan for a future contingency.

All you have done here is tell us what we already know -- that some scientists (who, by the way, get their funding from folks in government who also are believers) believe in anthropogenic climate change, usually through generic implication rather than evidence based facts.

See above. Again, I am sure as soon as the doubters supply a second Earth for experimentation, absolute proof can be arranged. Until such time, we must make do with scientific method, uncertainty, and correlation. It is either that, or throw up our hands and just say "We don't know nothin'" and quit.

As far as funding goes, the government has generally allowed scientists to report the results of their research and their (the scientists') interpretations. Even President Trump had to back off from his plan to vet EPA research politically before publication and gag scientists from publishing dissenting views, though the controversy lasted long enough that well regarded EPA employees quit rather than risk being silenced. This is in distinct contrast to the situation in most research funding by for-profit companies. There, the company maintains absolute ownership of all data. The data are not made public. Results are vetted prior to publication and it is not unheard of for unwanted results to simply never be mentioned. This is not a problem with NASA or NOAA or the IPCC. It is a problem with Exxon Mobile.

What I have done, is provided you with links to the extant scientific evidence. So far, I have been provided no contradictory evidence. I have heard a lot of but-you-cannot-prove-it statements. These are, as I noted in my first post and have reiterated here, not false. They are also asking for an impossible standard. And, I have heard nothing to indicate why available best, valid, scientific evidence, for what appears to be a growing problem of unprecedented proportions should not be used to guide decision making. There has been on reply: no guidance at all for rising sea levels, increasing ranges of vectors for tropical diseases, increasing scarcity of potable water, increasing heat-related deaths. There has been no elucidation of the purported 'natural cycles', no answer for why the evidence shows anthropogenic warming is the most reasonable explanation (indeed, the only one found so far) for the truly unprecedented increase we see.
Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, September 9, 2018 4:18:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,077
Neurons: 88,459
FounDit wrote:
And yes, I want absolute proof before we run off half-cocked and make laws that affect all of us before we know what we’re doing.

You're going to have to back off of this one FounDit, that is a flat out impossibility.

I've given my intellectual assent to the hypothesis of both climate change, and the anthropogenic contribution to it. Why? Because it is the consensus of the scientific community, and I have seen no direct evidence to the contrary, nor valid rebuttal of the evidence in support of the hypothesis. I also give my intellectual assent to other scientific conclusions such as cigarette smoking significantly raises the risk of lung cancer.

I also do not see the sense in not making the changes to our behavior that the hypothesis suggests. We most certainly should be seeking to lessen the amount of pollution we dump into the atmosphere, and if there is even the remotest chance that our contribution to the CO2 content of the atmosphere is causing warming, considering the consequences, we should be highly motivated to curb it.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 9, 2018 1:48:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Two pieces of good news:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-schell-hochschild-climate-summit-brown-china-20180909-story.html

California Gov. Jerry Brown will host thousands of international delegates at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco with China as a key participant this week.

Even while reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 9% over the last two decades, California increased its GDP by 46% since 2000 to become the world’s fifth-largest economy, proving that a state can reduce emissions and stimulate economic growth at the same time.

Brown has been an advocate for solar power, water conservation, and the environment since the seventies.

"Now state lawmakers have passed legislation that would require all utilities to obtain 100% of their power from renewable or zero-carbon sources by 2045."

CA also has a carbon cap-and-trade program, "which has served as a prototype for other American states as well as China’s new carbon markets."

(Ontario was working with California on climate change until Ontarians just put in a backward government a month or so ago because they wanted "change". Many are regretting their vote already.)



http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-carbon-removal-20180907-story.html

"California stands at the center of innovative efforts to develop carbon-capture and removal technologies. State officials have begun working them into their climate action plans...divert carbon from the atmosphere to massive underground aquifers or pour it into products as varied as cement blocks, stylish sneakers and kegs of beer."

Innovations with low carbon footprints could mitigate perturbations and could be incorporated into a climate change plan without affecting the way people behave. Except have more beer to drink. 😀 Some view this as a disincentive to curb carbon fuel use.

Congress approved new tax breaks for carbon-capture and carbon-removal projects. It was rare bipartisan action on climate change in Washington. Republicans, normally loath to subsidize such innovation, were attracted by the benefits it could provide to fossil-fuel companies.

Investors are responding as costs have come down on green energy and innovations to capture carbon.

California always has been the state that is on the leading edge of everything new.


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, September 9, 2018 2:00:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,725
Neurons: 51,343
RuthP wrote:
FounDit wrote:
RuthP wrote:
. . .
Disclosure: I believe the evidence for global warming and for significant anthropogenic (human-sourced) causes is now overwhelming. And I believe it is not. [emphasis added by me]
Evidence has been very strong since the 1990s. No evidence gathered since that time (or before, but it is since that counts) has done anything but increase the certainty. Nevertheless, because this is statistical evidence (as is all evidence in science, even for things we don't think of that way, like gravity or the composition of air), it can be harder to 'see' (in the sense of gut-feeling that this is correct) why the scientific community is so convinced this is true.
What's the old saying? There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. As has been proven on many occasions, nearly anything can be "proven" with statistics. It's all in how they are manipulated.

"Lying with statistics" occurs when one misuses statistics. It is not inherent in statistics. Statistics is, in fact, the one way we have of using data samples which is is humanly possible to gather, to reach conclusions about the world as a whole. Misuse of statistics may be intentional; it likely occurs more frequently because people (including scientists, sometimes) think they know more about stat than they actually do and fail to consult a statistician early enough in the process. The "lies, damn lies, and statistics" may be a catchy phrase, but it is largely a facile excuse for disbelieving evidence we dislike.

If one is going to eschew all use of statistics, then one has given up on the methods by which we have made our advances ever since the scientific revolution and the systematizing of research and science. One gives up all proven, accepted methods of establishing objective truth. These methods have proven in multiple ways. First, the mathematics works. Validity of using a sample to closely estimate the characteristics of an entire 'population' (i.e. all the data that exists) may be mathematically derived and the methods proven true. Second, the tests are confirmed empirically. A (completely) known population is sampled; statistical tests are used; the results match the population. Third (and most importantly) proper statistics allows for reproducible results. This means another research group can take another sample and the results they obtain will be the same as those of the first group, within the margin of uncertainty (also called margin of error).

If you decline to believe in scientific data gathering and analysis, with what do you replace it?

I can appreciate the time it took to write all of this, but an exposition on the fact that scientists use statistics doesn't prove humans are altering the climate. I do, however, agree with you that "Misuse of statistics may be intentional", and we have evidence that this has been done on at least one occasion over a period of time.

There are a couple of points involved in this topic:

1) Has the temperature of the Earth risen? Yes, by about one and one half degrees.

2) Are humans responsible for that temperature rise, or is it a natural phenomenon resulting from cyclical action? The assumption is yes, humans are responsible through the use of fossil fuels while excluding all other sources, because they are thought to be minimal, yet no definitive data has been presented to prove this that I've seen.

3) If humans are responsible, how does one compel ALL the countries on the planet to stop, or reduce, the use of fossil fuels? The answer is it can't be done, and the U.S. is NOT one of the worst on that list. In fact, the U.S. has done a great deal to eliminate, or reduce, pollution, yet enough seems to be never enough, as if it all depends on us (U.S.).

. . .

Links to sources
For those of us who are not climate scientists, I believe this is the best site for background, the issues, the evidence, and all those "why" questions: Union of Concerned Scientists: Global warming science. This takes you in to their global warming science page. The UCS covers other issues as well, and has many more pages on global warming. The further links I'll include in this post are available by clicking around on the site, so if you'd rather go see what you can see, rock on! (As the saying goes.) If you wish to broaden your topics, this is the home page: UCS home page.
Hmm, that's a nice name. I wonder if we have a Union of Unconcerned Scientists. This would be a group who know about global warming but don't really care enough to get involved...(joke)

You could just have easily linked to the Environmental Protection Agency. It seems an odd thing to me to try to prove a position by linking to a site that is filled with people who believe in exactly your position. That's kind of like linking to the Bible to prove God exists.

The Bible and other faith-based methods of 'knowing' are not in question here. If you wish to support climate denial with Faith in your Beliefs, then there is no discussion. Such faith-based talk does belong in Religion and Philosophy. I had thought the discussion was to be based in evidence and science.

The NASA site, UCS, IPCC, various university-based research groups in many fields have contributed data. NASA and IPCC support open databases, available to anyone wishing to analyze the data and create their own, testable models for what is happening. This Advancing the Science of Climate Change, by National Acadamies is a matter of science and evidence, not faith and belief.


An argument regarding CO2 and uncertainty
Two of the concerns that seemed very important in the R&P thread were certainty/uncertainty in data and conclusions, and the importance (or potential lack thereof) of CO2. For the former, try this page: UCS global warming: certainty & uncertainty. And, for why CO2 is the predominant concern, see this page: UCS global warming: why is CO2 so important?
More of the same. See Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for evidence of God as the man, Jesus.

See above.

The links are not a discussion of faith. They are a discussion of evidence and likelihood. The existence of doubt is recognized by researchers. Their conclusions (and language) reflect this. Researchers working in climate science have, in fact, tried to regularize the language of doubt, so comparisons between conclusions by different research groups can be made.

Did that comparison really go over your head? That's disappointing. Perhaps if you go back and read it again, hopefully, my point will become clear.

I picked these two issues, because they are very directly related to one another. The evidence for CO2 as a warming agent is strong. Most recently, we have been measuring atmospheric CO2 constantly since the 1950s. We have strong records of CO2 levels and we have strong records of temperatures. (At some point, I'll probably do another post about temperatures and increasing evidence--and thus certainty.)

We have strong data sets for CO2 and temperature since the 1950s. With these, it is possible to show an undeniable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Understand, a correlation does not prove cause and effect. It is, strictly speaking, not possible to prove cause and effect, given we are dealing with the world. To statistically prove cause and effect, we would need two earths, exactly the same, on one of which we would raise the CO2 levels and on the other we would maintain them as constant. Ain't gonna happen.
So since you cannot prove a cause and effect, you should not claim humans are altering the planet's climate (the generic "you"). Yet this is exactly the attitude adopted by everyone on your linked sites, and here on the forum, with the exception of me, perhaps.

What we can do, is establish a correlation which is very strong and we can try to control for as many other factors as we can consider. We control for these factors, which range from sun spots to heat islands (the effects of raised air temperature over cities, with all their concrete and asphalt--climate scientists spend a good bit of statistical energy ameliorating/reducing/removing the effects of these falsely high temperatures from global temperature estimates), to other constituents of global warming. These can be accounted for with statistics. Yes, there is uncertainty with all of this. Statistics, however, allows the calculation of the degree of that uncertainty.
And since there is uncertainty, and since no one can account specifically for how humans are accomplishing the alteration of the climate (if we are/can), it makes no sense to speak as if it is fact.

The only science with absolute certainty is mathematics, and people argue over whether math is a science or is mathematics: something different. All science is based on probability. That is what sampling and statistics are all about. It is how everything from pure science to applied sciences like engineering work. If one is unwilling to accept the scientific method, then one may go ahead and decide on faith and belief that one's own feelings tell the truth about the world. Otherwise, one needs to answer the evidence presented with contrary evidence. People proposing that some, so far ill defined, natural cycle accounts for the current variation need to elucidate the past working of the cycle and show how it predicts what has happened recently and provide predictions for the future. The last is critical: it is how we refine our understanding of how the entire climate system works: A model is proposed to explain what has happened. Predictions are made about what will happen. Actual data are gathered over the succeeding years. Differences are noted and changes made to the model to account for the difference. New predictions are made. Rinse and repeat, so to speak. Assuming corrections are correctly made, the accuracy of the model increases with time. If, instead, accuracy of prediction declines, then one concludes a different set of assumptions must be made to explain the discrepancies. This is time consuming work. We are in a system which works on years, decades and centuries. There is a reason biologists pick short-lived species for much of their research: it is possible to compress many generations into one year (or month, or sometimes even day). That is not an option here.

OK, back to CO2. We have a very strong data set for over 50 years now. "But wait!" You say. "50 years is but a nonce in the grand scheme of the Earth." This is true. So, we look for other ways to estimate CO2 levels. We use tree rings and growth. And the initial source of all this has been proven to have been false, as it was ultimately based on a single tree in Canada. This is the so-called "hockey stick" graph. Besides that, tree rings only show growth, not temperature, and growth is related to a number of factors such as fertilizer, water, diseases, insect damage, etc., not just temperature.

I am afraid some of your statements here are incorrect. In general, the "hockey stick graph" was terminology first used to describe a report from `98 by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (Mann, Bradley, Hughes on Penn State public access. Don't be fooled by the `94 date at the top: that's the format version for a PDF; see the References at the bottom). I think the 'hockey stick' description dates from `99 and may refer to an update of the graph. I am beyond positive all this can be found on a Google search. The complaint about tree species, not an individual tree, has to do with the use of data about the Bristlecone pine, which is native only to the US Southwest. It is an extraordinarily long-lived species and some have expressed concern that using data from a species confined to a small region (remember we are talking about global temperature) distorts conclusions. The data, which are published and have been openly available for anyone to analyze, have been analyzed without the Bristlecone. This did not substantively change the outcome.

Since 1998, the data have been analyzed by about a dozen different groups, using different methods. There have also been a few analyses which used other data sets, though how different those sets could be may be an issue: there is only so much data that has been gathered. At any rate, results are largely the same. There is no smoking gun, no radically different result. The twentieth century, and now the beginning of the twenty-first, are far and away the warmest in available historical and prehistorical data.

As far as the concerns about water, insects and fertilizer, the first two pretty well correlate with temperature. Other data are used to confirm water, lake bottom sediment being the primary. Insects infestations are usually considered prima facie evidence of warmer weather, so that does not really provide an alternate explanation. The third, well, unless you are predicating vastly different amounts of animal droppings over the centuries, I'm not sure that's an issue. We are not talking about agricultural cultivation of trees. This is out-in-the-wild stuff.

The tree ring evidence (and it is considered to have a significant margin of error) does not exist in isolation. The previously mentioned lake bottom sediments are another factor. Ice cores provide both CO2 (from gas bubbles) and temperature (from accumulation-winter and melt-summer) layers. Coral reefs are laid down in layers (analogous to tree rings). Reefs can be cored and the layers analyzed. All these methods have provided data for analysis. Supporting evidence which, as far as I know--which is limited--has not been used directly in analyses includes changes in geographic distribution of species of plants and animals. Changes in mating times, nesting times, hatching times (warmer temps can decrease the intervals as well as move mating forward), tree leafing / flowering, fruit set (same issues), time of insect hatches, agricultural yields. Again, these are correlations. Until we have a second Earth, that's what we have to work with. What is noticeable is that nothing contradicts the conclusions of global warming.

One more thing about the hockey stick. The hockey stick effect occurs because this graph is trying to look back over a very long time period. If one were to take the graph and make it much, much longer, giving more horizontal space to each year (or perhaps even just each decade) the extreme appearance of the rise on the right (the most recent time periods) would not appear as steep. It would, however, rise just as much in comparison to the average and to previous temperatures. This is a page NOAA: 2014 has global warming stopped first posted by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in 2014, when we had seen relatively little temperature rise between 1998 and 2012. The page was updated in 2015 (We are starting to see warming) and again this year (We are warming as fast as in the later twentieth). The graph on here is the same as the last part of the hockey stick graph. It represents the period from 1880 to present; the time for which we have measured temperatures. It does not look as extreme because it covers a much shorter time period. There is no doubt, however, which way it is headed. It is long enough in duration to show some of those natural cycles people wish to consider. The overall warming trend runs right over the top. It overwhelms the natural cycles.

This is also what is seen, to a yet greater extent, in the longer term graphs (which are important, because cycles could be longer than the roughly 140 years of measured data): We have natural cycles. We don't understand them all, but we can see their effects even when we are using secondary data (tree rings, ice cores, coral reefs). Since the Industrial Age, increasing with the increasing use of coal power and really taking off with the advent of petroleum product use, a warming trend overwhelms the effect of the previous 'natural' cycles. The correlation between known dates and measured values available for those dates is great. It requires significant evidence of other cause to introduce significant doubt: such evidence is lacking.

And from your link:

"While warmth early in the millennium approaches mean 20thcentury levels, the late 20th century still anomalous: the 1990s are likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in at least a millennium."


But, as has been demonstrated by other scientists, the graph omits a warming period that skews the data which results in the "hockey stick" warming trend. That is often conveniently overlooked.


Combined with temperature and rainfall data this gets us pretty good estimates for another 100-150 years. Tree rings without supporting information gets us back centuries. Atmospheric bubbles (in which CO2 may be measured) are obtained from antarctic ice cores. These overlap the tree ring data and refine it. They also go back millennia (800,000 years). And have absolutely nothing to do with humans causing the climate to change in any degree, but rather that temperature changes are cyclical.

We can gather the same kind of data today, but the problem is that these methods all have greater uncertainty in the the data they provide than does measuring actual CO2 and actual temperature. If one draws a line to represent the values over time, one should also draw a range above and below the line representing the uncertainty. The distance between the estimate and the upper and lower bounds (the standard deviation) will widen the further back one goes and the fewer sources for estimate one has. Nevertheless, even with increased uncertainty, the trending is clear.
And a trend is just that -- a trend. But you can't say it is caused by humans without proof, or evidence. There is no doubt the Earth has warmed by about one and a half degrees. The question is whether humans have caused it, or if it is a natural cycle.

Again, I am sure as soon as the doubters supply a second Earth for experimentation, absolute proof can be arranged. Until such time, we must make do with scientific method, uncertainty, and correlation. It is either that, or throw up our hands and just say "We don't know nothin'" and quit.


More links and sources
NASA has done a lot of work on this, and is a good source of reliable information. Here is a link: NASA: Climate change evidence. Here's another NASA page: NASA: Concensus on climate change. Back to the UCS: UCS: concensus on global warming.
And I can give you names of NASA scientists and climate scientists from the IPCC that disagree with humans causing climate change. As I said, the science isn't settled.

Of course you can find individuals, including some researchers, who disagree. The science, however, is settled. Overall, between 5% and 3% of scientists worldwide disagree with established climate science and current conclusions. The percentage is less at NASA and IPCC. This means better than 95% of researchers agree with current conclusions (within their margin of error). This is as close to unity as one is ever apt to get. (Remember, President Trump's overwhelming Electoral College margin was 57%. If that qualifies as overwhelming support, the 95% . . .)

To be a bit more serious, the UCS and NASA sites, and the IPCC, all present the evidence for their conclusions. Opponents are largely limited to saying they don't believe it is settled, without giving any valid numbers for why this overwhelming body of evidence is insufficient. There are some opponents who cherry-pick time periods to "prove" the temperature increases were only a momentary blip. This has become markedly less common recently. The big effort for this was in the late `90s, early `00s. Since then, the jump back up into still higher global temperature has made this particular argument completely unconvincing. So, now we are left with only the maybe-humans-didn't-do-this argument.

You are correct: the data we have can show only correlation; they cannot show causation. This is not a factor of insufficient data, it is a matter of inability to control the system. You are back to the two identical Earths problem: there is no control. Nevertheless, the correlation between human activity and carbon dioxide levels and global temperature is stunning. We cannot reasonably expect to influence those supposed natural changes, therefore we are left only with the human contribution to consider. Even if one does not wish to believe humans as the root cause, temperature increase is large, increasing, and undeniable. The sequelae are severe. If we are to try to ameliorate these sequelae, we must act on that which we can influence: human contribution. Possibly (but I doubt it) this would not be enough. (It likely won't be enough, not because we could not have an effect, but because we lack the will to act.)


And, finally, because some are skeptical about scientists, perhaps this will help: US Defense Department: 2014 Acquisition map for adapting to climate change (PDF). Even the military is convinced it needs to plan.

So if I don't believe the scientists who hold to this belief have examined the evidence (This is not the bible; this is the scientific method. Provide contradicting information if you have it.), I should trust the military? Aside from that, the military runs scenarios for all kinds of outlandish possibilities. That doesn't mean they will happen, or that they are true just because someone makes a plan for a future contingency.

All you have done here is tell us what we already know -- that some scientists (who, by the way, get their funding from folks in government who also are believers) believe in anthropogenic climate change, usually through generic implication rather than evidence based facts.

See above. Again, I am sure as soon as the doubters supply a second Earth for experimentation, absolute proof can be arranged. Until such time, we must make do with scientific method, uncertainty, and correlation. It is either that, or throw up our hands and just say "We don't know nothin'" and quit.

As far as funding goes, the government has generally allowed scientists to report the results of their research and their (the scientists') interpretations. Even President Trump had to back off from his plan to vet EPA research politically before publication and gag scientists from publishing dissenting views, though the controversy lasted long enough that well regarded EPA employees quit rather than risk being silenced. This is in distinct contrast to the situation in most research funding by for-profit companies. There, the company maintains absolute ownership of all data. The data are not made public. Results are vetted prior to publication and it is not unheard of for unwanted results to simply never be mentioned. This is not a problem with NASA or NOAA or the IPCC. It is a problem with Exxon Mobile.

What I have done, is provided you with links to the extant scientific evidence. So far, I have been provided no contradictory evidence.
Oh, please. You know a negative can't be proved.


I have heard a lot of but-you-cannot-prove-it statements. These are, as I noted in my first post and have reiterated here, not false. They are also asking for an impossible standard. And, I have heard nothing to indicate why available best, valid, scientific evidence, for what appears to be a growing problem of unprecedented proportions should not be used to guide decision making. There has been on reply: no guidance at all for rising sea levels, increasing ranges of vectors for tropical diseases, increasing scarcity of potable water, increasing heat-related deaths. There has been no elucidation of the purported 'natural cycles', no answer for why the evidence shows anthropogenic warming is the most reasonable explanation (indeed, the only one found so far) for the truly unprecedented increase we see.

I would suspect you have seen no elucidation on the "purported" natural cycles because you haven't look for them, and wouldn't believe them even if presented. You have already made up your mind. BTW, when did natural cycles become merely "purported"? Do you not believe in natural cycles?

You mention rising sea levels, and your first link to the Union of Concerned Scientists has something about that on their page. It is a sidebar graphic titled:
"SEA LEVEL RISE AND GLOBAL WARMING". If you click on it, you are taken to a page with some graphics that imply that humans are responsible for global warming. The graphic is too large to post here, but anyone can follow the link.

The point of this is to show the not-so-subtle propaganda of it. If you look at the graph on sea rise, then read what it says at the bottom, you find:

"Global average sea level has increased 8 inches since 1880. The local rate varies depending on both global and local factors including currents (which humans can't control), ocean floor topography (which humans can't control), variation in ocean density (which humans can't control), and land uplift or subsidence due to geological processes (which humans can't control), or human activities (which they very carefully fail to describe in any detail what those might be, or to what extent they influence sea levels.)

You will notice, however, in the bottom graphic a small icon of a factory putting out smoke - subtle. The implication of the whole thing is that it is our fault, but conveniently omitting all other factors. I find this both intellectually lazy and lame, and offensive to logical thinking.

Ultimately, Epiphileon presents what may be the best description of the thinking of those of you who are believers when he says, twice, "...if there is even the remotest chance that our contribution to the CO2 content of the atmosphere is causing warming, considering the consequences, we should be highly motivated to curb it."


Is this how we should make law — on the fear of "What If"? If we made all our laws and regulations this way, on the fear that something bad might happen, even the remotest chance it might, I doubt we would all be able to leave our caves, because we certainly wouldn't be allowed to build houses with all the things in it that can kill us.

You all may be willing to live you lives in the "Fear of What If", but I choose not to.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Romany
Posted: Sunday, September 9, 2018 2:48:47 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,548
Neurons: 45,447
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Epi -

I find the discussion about whether climate change is being accelerated by human intervention utterly pointless for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being that, whatever one's position, we are experiencing it. The climate is changing to an extent that governments have joined together to share data:- to ensure that we get global input on events once considered to be infrequent, which are increasingly impacting our entire habitat: earth.

Whether un-regulated pollution of our skies, seas, land, air and fresh water works well or not is beyond all doubt. Only those living in underground bunkers; or those whose only view of the outside world is through the lens of Fox; could possibly be unaware of what effects climate change - no matter its cause - is having on the entire planet.

Globally, the concerted plan to try to restore the whole planet - not just one little part of it - to an environment which no longer has detrimental effects on the inhabitants, fauna & flora, soil fertility, oceans, drinking water etc.; is considered a pretth "Duh!" concept. It's not a matter for debate. Of course humanity should play its part in the survival of not just all our species, but our common environment! What's even controversial about that?

The kind of mind which can object to putting measures in place to try to sustain our entire world population - and the viable life of the planet we inhabit- simply because of their own politics is disturbingly out of sinc. with societal norms.

People may believe the current climate change is the result of:

the hand of God?
a wicked fairy?
being invented by the media which is uniformally, across the board, in every instance, the token "Enemy of the People"?

What has that to do with reality? Things are going shite, weather-wise. Who cares what people ascribe to the cause?

What are we doing about it? How can we find out? What measures are being taken?How does the repealing of every Environmental Bill ever brought in over the past 8 years help sustain the planet?

Those are the only things one should be discussing now. Making the sustainability of the planet and the saving of human life here and now, dependent upon a tiny proportion of the world's population, in one particular group, in one particular place? Jt's a preposperous idea.

If the past two years have taught us - wherever we may be - anything, its that those who really can't discern what is or isn't preposterous often have a rather fluent and distorted grasp on reality.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 9, 2018 3:10:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Not making a decision IS making a decision. Once a decision is made and action begins, any fear, IF applicable, diminishes. Acceptance of reality, not fear, is what motivates me. Going off "half-cocked" is not happening, nor have any details even been listed here as to what constitutes "half-cocked" in this scenario. The only evidence of that is the repeal of regulations in the US that were put there to protect the air and water quality etc.

Three questions to ask when making any decision.

1. What is the best outcome that can happen?
2. What is the worst outcome that can possibly happen?


3. What is the result of remaining the same?

Answers:

1. We help mitigate perturbations and have some effect on the anthropogenic portion of climate change, we lower our greenhouse gas emissions by 9% or more, lower our carbon footprints, increase our GDP by 46%, lower pollution, and affect the health of humankind for the better.

2. We lower our carbon footprints, increase our GDP by 46%, lower pollution and clean up the environment, affect the health of humankind for the better, but do not affect climate change - for several possible reasons. We didn't do enough, soon enough, we could not overcome natural cycles, or it was not anthropogenic at all.

3. Perturbations will continue to get worse as is already happening and we will have no idea if we might have changed anything or not because we were too apathetic, scared to try, or thought money and the politics of power were more important. And we might have had to change the kind of light bulbs we use, recycle, or cause polluters for profit to pay for their messes.



Edited - I had not read Romany's post when I posted. She makes several good points (as did Epi and Ruth previously) but one thought that struck me as I read her post was that the US has 4.28 % of the world population and although caused the most pollution as it developed is second NOW in emissions to China - that is just becoming industrialized. At least China has accepted reality, is doing something about it and will be at Brown's CA summit this week.

And yes, Romany, this forum is about the only place where I even hear any discussion about if humankind has affected the earth detrimentally.

The discussion has surpassed that to finding innovations. Even 14 year-olds are involved. I read a story today about a kid who has developed a system that is being tested for the removal of plastic from that toxic garbage dump in the ocean! Kudos and I hope it works well enough for it to become a major business for him! We wrecked it; the young will have to deal with it and fix it. And those brilliant young minds will do exactly that.










The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, September 10, 2018 2:59:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 989
Neurons: 487,250
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
I can appreciate the time it took to write all of this, but an exposition on the fact that scientists use statistics doesn't prove humans are altering the climate.


FounDit disagrees with a specific argument (statistics that support proof of anthropogenic climate change)
He 'refutes' it with a general statement ("statistics are useless")
His general argument is addressed ("statistics have value in science")
To which FounDit complains it has nothing to do with the original specific question ("you explaining the value of statistics has nothing to do with climate change").

It's an impressive and ultimately pointless misdirection.

FounDit wrote:
There are a couple of points involved in this topic:

1) Has the temperature of the Earth risen? Yes, by about one and one half degrees.

2) Are humans responsible for that temperature rise, or is it a natural phenomenon resulting from cyclical action? The assumption is yes, humans are responsible through the use of fossil fuels while excluding all other sources, because they are thought to be minimal, yet no definitive data has been presented to prove this that I've seen.

3) If humans are responsible, how does one compel ALL the countries on the planet to stop, or reduce, the use of fossil fuels? The answer is it can't be done, and the U.S. is NOT one of the worst on that list. In fact, the U.S. has done a great deal to eliminate, or reduce, pollution, yet enough seems to be never enough, as if it all depends on us (U.S.).

2) Deliberate ignoring of all (requested!) evidence presented so far
3) Perfectionist fallacy. "We can't find a perfect solution so we might as well do nothing!" And some appeal to pity with the U.S. comment.

FounDit wrote:
Oh, please. You know a negative can't be proved.

Yet FounDit rests so much of his argument on the many scientists he claims disagree that it's anthropogenic.

FounDit wrote:
Is this how we should make law — on the fear of "What If"? If we made all our laws and regulations this way, on the fear that something bad might happen, even the remotest chance it might, I doubt we would all be able to leave our caves, because we certainly wouldn't be allowed to build houses with all the things in it that can kill us.


And this is why FounDit doesn't believe in laws for speed limits, driver's licenses, seat belts...
Romany
Posted: Monday, September 10, 2018 1:59:29 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,548
Neurons: 45,447
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Lotje -

As you'll know by now, I've been following the Trumpeters circus for almost 2 years from the point of view of language.

One thing that's also helped has been listening to The Atheist Experience. The people who call in to this show are the kinds of people who are highly represented in the Trump base: and so it's been an eye-opener to hear not just what they're saying, but HOW they say it. FDs ideas, "logic", vocabulary, ad hominems, whatabout-ism etc. are exact facsimilies!

Listen to a few of the people who call in. It'll put you on the right page to be able to get the measure of FDs posts. I found that it was doing this which showed me the utter futility of expecting truth and/or facts and/or statistics and/or knowledge to have any impact at all.

Give it a go: you'll hear many of the words, phrases and arguments which make up FDs posts over and over again. You'll also hear all of these being shot down in flames when confronted by proof, reality, facts...and then starting all over again completely ignoring the fact that any of these proofs, facts and real-world answers have ever been mentioned!

Once you get to the point where you're giggling madly you'll understand why I no longer bother getting involved with FDs silliness.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, September 10, 2018 4:01:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,725
Neurons: 51,343
Romany wrote:
Epi -

I find the discussion about whether climate change is being accelerated by human intervention utterly pointless for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being that, whatever one's position, we are experiencing it. The argument is not whether or not we are experiencing change, but whether or not humans are causing it, and to what degree.

The climate is changing to an extent that governments have joined together to share data:- to ensure that we get global input on events once considered to be infrequent, which are increasingly impacting our entire habitat: earth.
The climate is always changing and is always impacting the habitat, but stating that fact does not answer the question as to whether or not humans are causing it, or to what degree.

Whether un-regulated pollution of our skies, seas, land, air and fresh water works well or not is beyond all doubt. Only those living in underground bunkers; or those whose only view of the outside world is through the lens of Fox; could possibly be unaware of what effects climate change - no matter its cause - is having on the entire planet.
But we have regulated the pollution of the skies, seas, land and air here in the U.S. and a few other countries, but you insist more must be done. How much more? and who will force the remainder of the planet to join in on that plan? Having just a few countries work on it won't solve the problem if the others continue to pollute at ever-increasing levels. And all this assumes WE did cause the slight increase in temperature, while ignoring all other contributors.

Globally, the concerted plan to try to restore the whole planet - not just one little part of it - to an environment which no longer has detrimental effects on the inhabitants, fauna & flora, soil fertility, oceans, drinking water etc.; is considered a pretth "Duh!" concept. It's not a matter for debate. Of course humanity should play its part in the survival of not just all our species, but our common environment! What's even controversial about that?
Of course it is a matter for debate! You make the assumption that our species is going to die, but you offer no evidence that this is true, or even inevitable.

The kind of mind which can object to putting measures in place to try to sustain our entire world population - and the viable life of the planet we inhabit- simply because of their own politics is disturbingly out of sinc. with societal norms.
Now you are planning on the death of the whole world's population unless you believers get your way and have everyone think as you do. Talk about living in fear. Wow.

People may believe the current climate change is the result of:

the hand of God?
a wicked fairy?
being invented by the media which is uniformally, across the board, in every instance, the token "Enemy of the People"?
No, the idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change is the result of the Hippie movement of the 1960s - 70s when young people rejected the establishment and had a "return to the Earth" movement; doing such things as chaining themselves to trees to prohibit them being cut down by the lumber industry. They abandoned mainstream religion and embraced more Eastern-style philosophies of Mother Earth (Gaia). They even had a magazine called Mother Earth News which documented their lifestyle and how to live it. I used to read it just to see what it was about. Much of it was very interesting, though I didn't agree with all of it.

What has that to do with reality? Things are going shite, weather-wise. Who cares what people ascribe to the cause?
The weather is going to shite? Evidence, please. What is happening that has not happened before? Answer: absolutely nothing. The Earth has cycles. All of this and much worse has all happened before.

What are we doing about it? How can we find out? What measures are being taken?How does the repealing of every Environmental Bill ever brought in over the past 8 years help sustain the planet?
Who is suggesting repeal of every Environmental Bill ever brought in over the last 8 years? No one I know. Such hyperbole doesn't give you credit for reasoned argument.

Those are the only things one should be discussing now. Making the sustainability of the planet and the saving of human life here and now, dependent upon a tiny proportion of the world's population, in one particular group, in one particular place? Jt's a preposperous idea.
And once again, you assume the planet and all human life is at risk without any evidence to back up that claim.

If the past two years have taught us - wherever we may be - anything, its that those who really can't discern what is or isn't preposterous often have a rather fluent and distorted grasp on reality.
And from my perspective, you have just described yourself.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Monday, September 10, 2018 4:17:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,725
Neurons: 51,343
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
I can appreciate the time it took to write all of this, but an exposition on the fact that scientists use statistics doesn't prove humans are altering the climate.


FounDit disagrees with a specific argument (statistics that support proof of anthropogenic climate change)
No statistics supporting proof of anthropogenic climate change was presented. Rather, it was an exposition on the idea that scientists use statistics to reach a conclusion; but no such statistics were given to prove the argument.

He 'refutes' it with a general statement ("statistics are useless")
I don't say statistics are useless, just that they can be manipulated, to which Ruth agreed herself.

His general argument is addressed ("statistics have value in science")
To which FounDit complains it has nothing to do with the original specific question ("you explaining the value of statistics has nothing to do with climate change").
A true statement.
It's an impressive and ultimately pointless misdirection.
No, just a fact.

FounDit wrote:
There are a couple of points involved in this topic:

1) Has the temperature of the Earth risen? Yes, by about one and one half degrees.

2) Are humans responsible for that temperature rise, or is it a natural phenomenon resulting from cyclical action? The assumption is yes, humans are responsible through the use of fossil fuels while excluding all other sources, because they are thought to be minimal, yet no definitive data has been presented to prove this that I've seen.

3) If humans are responsible, how does one compel ALL the countries on the planet to stop, or reduce, the use of fossil fuels? The answer is it can't be done, and the U.S. is NOT one of the worst on that list. In fact, the U.S. has done a great deal to eliminate, or reduce, pollution, yet enough seems to be never enough, as if it all depends on us (U.S.).

2) Deliberate ignoring of all (requested!) evidence presented so far
No evidence has been presented; only the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

3) Perfectionist fallacy. "We can't find a perfect solution so we might as well do nothing!" And some appeal to pity with the U.S. comment.
And I repeat, if you have the evidence, simply present it. Don't argue that scientists have it. If they do have it, they should have obviously presented it, and they have not.

FounDit wrote:
Oh, please. You know a negative can't be proved.

Yet FounDit rests so much of his argument on the many scientists he claims disagree that it's anthropogenic.
Correct, because THERE ARE scientists, climate scientists, who do not agree that humans are the cause of climate change.

FounDit wrote:
Is this how we should make law — on the fear of "What If"? If we made all our laws and regulations this way, on the fear that something bad might happen, even the remotest chance it might, I doubt we would all be able to leave our caves, because we certainly wouldn't be allowed to build houses with all the things in it that can kill us.


And this is why FounDit doesn't believe in laws for speed limits, driver's licenses, seat belts...
Silly argument because we obviously have cars capable of speed, drivers who operate those cars and seat belts that can be worn. All these things can be proven to exist. Now you just need to show the proof that humans are causing the climate to change, and so far none of you have done that. You simply mock me for disagreeing with you and then fall back on the Appeal to Authority fallacy.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Monday, September 10, 2018 4:29:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,725
Neurons: 51,343
Romany wrote:
Lotje -

As you'll know by now, I've been following the Trumpeters circus for almost 2 years from the point of view of language.

One thing that's also helped has been listening to The Atheist Experience. The people who call in to this show are the kinds of people who are highly represented in the Trump base: and so it's been an eye-opener to hear not just what they're saying, but HOW they say it. FDs ideas, "logic", vocabulary, ad hominems, whatabout-ism etc. are exact facsimilies!

Listen to a few of the people who call in. It'll put you on the right page to be able to get the measure of FDs posts. I found that it was doing this which showed me the utter futility of expecting truth and/or facts and/or statistics and/or knowledge to have any impact at all.

Give it a go: you'll hear many of the words, phrases and arguments which make up FDs posts over and over again. You'll also hear all of these being shot down in flames when confronted by proof, reality, facts...and then starting all over again completely ignoring the fact that any of these proofs, facts and real-world answers have ever been mentioned!

Once you get to the point where you're giggling madly you'll understand why I no longer bother getting involved with FDs silliness.


And this is how you argue, eh? Mock me with an Ad Hominem fallacy by comparing me to some talk show, but never present any evidence to support the claim humans are responsible for altering the climate. This appears to be the only argument any of you can make, and its not even an argument. It's what you do when you can't argue the facts of the topic — Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority fallacies.

It gives you all an appearance similar to ISIS - a fanatical belief that can't tolerate any disagreement, and that's a shame, IMO.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:04:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada



The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Lotje1000
Posted: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:39:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 989
Neurons: 487,250
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
No statistics supporting proof of anthropogenic climate change was presented. Rather, it was an exposition on the idea that scientists use statistics to reach a conclusion; but no such statistics were given to prove the argument.

Not in that post, but in the countless other posts with links, evidence (including statistical evidence) was provided.

FounDit wrote:
I don't say statistics are useless, just that they can be manipulated, to which Ruth agreed herself.

You didn't have a single good thing to say about statistics, only that they can be manipulated to prove anything.

FounDit wrote:
No, just a fact.

It was a strawman where you attacked statistics in general, rather than dealing with climate change and the statistics in support of that.

FounDit wrote:
No evidence has been presented; only the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Many links and arguments have been provided, you just don't respond to them, nor prove anything for yourself. You only refer to some vague scientists who support your point of view but don't even bother linking us to them.

FounDit wrote:
And I repeat, if you have the evidence, simply present it. Don't argue that scientists have it. If they do have it, they should have obviously presented it, and they have not.

Links and evidence has been provided. Scientists have studied this extensively, people have linked to their findings. I understand it's much easier if we do the work for you, spoon-feeding you the information and providing you inadvertently with a much easier target to argue with than professional scientists with years of experience.

FounDit wrote:
Correct, because THERE ARE scientists, climate scientists, who do not agree that humans are the cause of climate change.

But they can't prove it, because you can't prove a negative according to you, so you undermined the basis of your own argument. After all, where is the absolute proof you're constantly asking us for? So why should we buy into your side of things?

FounDit wrote:
Silly argument because we obviously have cars capable of speed, drivers who operate those cars and seat belts that can be worn. All these things can be proven to exist. Now you just need to show the proof that humans are causing the climate to change, and so far none of you have done that. You simply mock me for disagreeing with you and then fall back on the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

If no one feared the risk of damage from a collision, seat belts would not have been invented and their use later cemented in law. And that was the basis of your whole argument "Is this how we should make law — on the fear of "What If"?" We have measures to turn back or slow the progression of climate change, but you're arguing we shouldn't put them in to law just because we're afraid of something.

And still, throughout this whole thread, you still haven't posted a single piece of evidence in favour of your side of the debate. I suggest we all give you some time and space to provide us with some links
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:30:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,725
Neurons: 51,343
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
No statistics supporting proof of anthropogenic climate change was presented. Rather, it was an exposition on the idea that scientists use statistics to reach a conclusion; but no such statistics were given to prove the argument.

Not in that post, but in the countless other posts with links, evidence (including statistical evidence) was provided.
If that evidence was posted, then I did miss it. If you would be so kind as to post again the evidence that humans not only can alter the climate, but have done so, I would be very appreciative.

FounDit wrote:
I don't say statistics are useless, just that they can be manipulated, to which Ruth agreed herself.

You didn't have a single good thing to say about statistics, only that they can be manipulated to prove anything.
Awww, poor statistics! Did they get their feelings hurt because I didn't say anything good about them?

FounDit wrote:
No, just a fact.

It was a strawman where you attacked statistics in general, rather than dealing with climate change and the statistics in support of that.
No straw man at all. Do you know what a straw man is? What I said was true - statistics can and have been manipulated to provide conclusions desired.

FounDit wrote:
No evidence has been presented; only the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Many links and arguments have been provided, you just don't respond to them, nor prove anything for yourself. You only refer to some vague scientists who support your point of view but don't even bother linking us to them.
Links to sites of fellow believers. And the scientists aren't vague, they are real, if you care to hear them (which I seriously doubt).

FounDit wrote:
And I repeat, if you have the evidence, simply present it. Don't argue that scientists have it. If they do have it, they should have obviously presented it, and they have not.

Links and evidence has been provided. Scientists have studied this extensively, people have linked to their findings. I understand it's much easier if we do the work for you, spoon-feeding you the information and providing you inadvertently with a much easier target to argue with than professional scientists with years of experience.
It's you who are trying, supposedly, to convince me, but all you can do is insult, demean, make illogical comparisons, and link to sites that confirm your own bias. Don't provide links. Provide the evidence. Surely those scientists have provided clear and reasonable evidence to support their claims, right? Not maybe, might, possibly, could, but clear evidence that humans are responsible for altering the climate. You and your scientists say it, so you should be able to prove it. Do so.

FounDit wrote:
Correct, because THERE ARE scientists, climate scientists, who do not agree that humans are the cause of climate change.

But they can't prove it, because you can't prove a negative according to you, so you undermined the basis of your own argument. After all, where is the absolute proof you're constantly asking us for? So why should we buy into your side of things?
It isn't their job to prove a negative. It is the job of your side to provide evidence for your claims if you want agreement and support. So far, none of you have done so.

FounDit wrote:
Silly argument because we obviously have cars capable of speed, drivers who operate those cars and seat belts that can be worn. All these things can be proven to exist. Now you just need to show the proof that humans are causing the climate to change, and so far none of you have done that. You simply mock me for disagreeing with you and then fall back on the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

If no one feared the risk of damage from a collision, seat belts would not have been invented and their use later cemented in law. And that was the basis of your whole argument "Is this how we should make law — on the fear of "What If"?" We have measures to turn back or slow the progression of climate change, but you're arguing we shouldn't put them in to law just because we're afraid of something.
You haven't shown that humans are responsible for any progression of climate change. You simply say it is true but can't prove it. And yes, you want to make law simply out of fear.

And still, throughout this whole thread, you still haven't posted a single piece of evidence in favour of your side of the debate. I suggest we all give you some time and space to provide us with some links
See above.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 5:32:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf - 1454 pages and many citations. Their fifth assessment. Others are available on line too.

This link was from 2014 and the numbers for anthropogenic GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions would be even higher with four more years of consumption and industrialization. In fact the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems to think restricting global warming to below 1.5 degrees is not even realistic anymore. Their 2018 report is to come out this fall.

This is just a tiny excerpt of the report.

"...chapter analyzes the anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trends until the present and the main drivers that explain those trends. The chapter uses different perspectives to analyze past GHG-emissions trends, including aggregate emissions flows and per capita emissions, cumulative emissions, sectoral emissions, and territory-based vs. con- sumption-based emissions. In all cases, global and regional trends are analyzed. Where appropriate, the emission trends are contextualized with long-term historic developments in GHG emissions extending back to 1750.

GHG-emissions trends

Anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased from 27 (±32) to 49 (±45) GtCO2eq/yr (+80%) between 1970 and 2010; GHG emissions during the last decade of this period were the highest in human history (high confidence).1 GHG emissions grew on average by 1 GtCO2eq (2.2 %) per year between 2000 and 2010, com- pared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3 %) per year between 1970 and 2000. [Sec- tion 5.2.1]
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78 % of the total GHG emission increase from 1970 to 2010, with similar percentage contribution for the period 2000–2010 (high confidence). Fossil fuel-related CO2 emis- sions for energy purposes increased consistently over the last 40 years reaching32(±2.7)GtCO2/yr,or69%ofglobalGHGemissionsin2010.2 They grew further by about 3 % between 2010 and 2011 and by about 1–2% between 2011 and 2012. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land use changes have been the second-largest contributors whose emissions, including other GHGs, have reached 12 GtCO2eq/yr (low con- fidence), 24 % of global GHG emissions in 2010. Since 1970, CO2 emis- sions increased by about 90%, and methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) increased by about 47 % and 43 %, respectively. Fluorinated gases (F-gases) emitted in industrial processes continue to represent le
ss than 2% of anthropogenic GHG emissions. Of the 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2010, CO2 remains the major anthropogenic GHG accounting for 76 % (38±3.8 GtCO2eq/yr) of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2010. 16 % (7.8±1.6 GtCO2eq/yr) come from methane (CH4), 6.2 % (3.1±1.9 GtCO2eq/yr) from nitrous oxide (N2O), and 2.0 % (1.0±0.2 GtCO2eq/yr) from fluorinated gases. [5.2.1]
Over the last four decades GHG emissions have risen in every region other than Economies in Transition, though trends in the different regions have been dissimilar (high confidence). In Asia, GHG emissions grew by 330% reaching 19 GtCO2eq/yr in
Values with ± provide uncertainty ranges for a 90 % confidence interval.
2 Unless stated otherwise, all emission shares are calculated based on global
warming potential with a 100-year time horizon. See also Section 3.9.6 for more information on emission metrics.
2010, in Middle East and Africa (MAF) by 70%, in Latin America (LAM) by 57%, in the group of member countries of the Organ- isation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD- 1990) by 22 %, and in Economies in Transition (EIT) by 4 %.3 Although small in absolute terms, GHG emissions from international transportation are growing rapidly. [5.2.1]
Cumulative fossil CO2 emissions (since 1750) more than tripled from 420 GtCO2 by 1970 to 1300 GtCO2 (±8 %) by 2010 (high confidence). Cumulative CO2 emissions associated with agriculture, deforestation, and other land use change (AFOLU) have increased from about 490 GtCO2 in 1970 to approximately 680 GtCO2 (±45 %) in 2010. Considering cumulative CO2 emissions from 1750 to 2010, the OECD-1990 region continues to be the major contributor with 42%; Asia with 22 % is increasing its share. [5.2.1]
In 2010, median per capita emissions for the group of high- income countries (13 tCO2eq/cap) is almost 10 times that of low-income countries (14 tCO2eq/cap) (robust evidence, high agreement). Global average per capita GHG emissions have shown a stable trend over the last 40 years. This global average, however, masks the divergence that exists at the regional level; in 2010 per capita GHG emissions in OECD-1990 and EIT are between 1.9 and 2.7 times higher than per capita GHG emissions in LAM, MAF, and Asia. While per cap- ita GHG emissions in LAM and MAF have been stable over the last four decades, in Asia they have increased by more than 120 %. [5.2.1]
The energy and industry sectors in upper-middle income countries accounted for 60 % of the rise in global GHG emissions between 2000 and 2010 (high confidence). From 2000–2010, GHG emissions grew in all sectors, except in AFOLU where positive and negative emis- sion changes are reported across different databases and uncertainties in the data are high: energy supply (+36 %, to 17 GtCO2eq/yr), indus- try (+39 %, to 10 GtCO2eq/yr), transport (+18 %, to 7.0 GtCO2eq/yr), buildings (+9 %, to 3.2 GtCO2eq/yr), AFOLU (+8 %, to 12 GtCO2eq/yr).4 Waste GHG emissions increased substantially but remained close to 3 % of global GHG emissions. [5.3.4, 5.3.5]
In the OECD-1990 region, territorial CO2 emissions slightly decreased between 2000 and 2010, but consumption-based CO2 emissions increased by 5 % (robust evidence, high agreement). In most developed countries, both consumption-related emissions and GDP are growing. There is an emerging gap between territorial,..."

This is what the IPPC is and why they are a good authority spanning the world of science and its papers. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/06/what-is-ipcc

https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html Connection between GHG and warming has been known since 1896.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 5:50:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
As someone interested in education, I wondered what they are teaching children about climate change these days.

It is no wonder there is more climate denial in the US than anywhere else in the world when in some parts of the US they have been teaching politics to children as early as grade six - that Climate Change is a matter of opinion. This link is from 2015, so I hope that teaching has changed with all the developments seen in three years.

http://thescienceexplorer.com/nature/sixth-grade-students-taught-climate-change-matter-opinion

Others are putting the following logic into their lesson plans to teach children as young as grade two or three with lessons, explanations, and experiments. Even children that young can understand the concepts if materials at appropriate levels are used.

A link for teachers:

http://www.hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/teachersguide/teachersguide.htm

- Humans burn fossil fuels that leave a signature, just as you can write your signature.

- Carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane produced by human activities stay around for a long time and trap heat in the atmosphere like a blanket.

- Natural sources of carbon are called δ13C which has decreased while the overall amount of CO2 has increased. This information tells scientists that fossil fuel emissions are the largest contributor of CO2 concentrations since the pre-industrial era as the largest preponderance of carbon dioxide measured in the air has that human fingerprint signature. Recently the total ppm have increased exponentially.

- And so the earth's surface IS warming exponentially. That's why we have all the storms that are getting bigger and are more frequent.

- Since human activity is a driving force in the changes, we can all do our part to help in little ways. And - you can grow up to create inventions too so let's think of new ways we could solve some problems.

Edited - Lotje, do you suppose I should post these two posts in red so FD cannot say he missed the facts he said he was waiting eagerly to see?

FounDit wrote: Should be easy to do, right? So if you find those sources and numbers, I will then gladly agree with you and those scientists that say global warming is anthropogenic.

I look forward to reading your data with eagerness and anticipation.




The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 3:42:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 989
Neurons: 487,250
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
If that evidence was posted, then I did miss it. If you would be so kind as to post again the evidence that humans not only can alter the climate, but have done so, I would be very appreciative.

Once again, you're not responding to anything specific. Just a catch all claim that no one has spoon-fed you the information.

FounDit wrote:
Awww, poor statistics! Did they get their feelings hurt because I didn't say anything good about them?

While googling statistics on the effectiveness of mockery in debate, I found some more statistics relevant to this thread:

"The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans have caused most, and probably all of the rapid global warming over the past 60 years. Approximately 97 percent of climate experts and peer-reviewed climate science studies agree." from source.

FounDit wrote:
No straw man at all. Do you know what a straw man is? What I said was true - statistics can and have been manipulated to provide conclusions desired.

"giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." You're doing it again right here, focusing on statistics in general as a bad thing. That way you pretend that by "refuting" the value of statistics, you've somehow proved that climate change isn't partially caused by people.
You could also see it as an overgeneralization, if you like, where you imply that because it can happen that statistics are misused, suddenly all statistics are wrong. Which in itself is misusing statistics, as you're giving too much weight to a small number (incredibly small, as you've never actually talked about concrete examples. You've only expressed a general distrust).

FounDit wrote:
Links to sites of fellow believers. And the scientists aren't vague, they are real, if you care to hear them (which I seriously doubt).

Scientists aren't believers. They back up their theory with facts and experiments, not faith. You are a believer (or a non-believer in this case) as you present no evidence, facts, experiments, source material or anything to support your argument.

FounDit wrote:
It's you who are trying, supposedly, to convince me, but all you can do is insult, demean, make illogical comparisons, and link to sites that confirm your own bias. Don't provide links. Provide the evidence. Surely those scientists have provided clear and reasonable evidence to support their claims, right? Not maybe, might, possibly, could, but clear evidence that humans are responsible for altering the climate. You and your scientists say it, so you should be able to prove it. Do so.

So you're countering my claim that you're pushing us for evidence because you'd rather take on non-professionals than actual scientists by... pushing us to provide you with evidence rather than taking on actual scientists or reading their reports.

FounDit wrote:
It isn't their job to prove a negative. It is the job of your side to provide evidence for your claims if you want agreement and support. So far, none of you have done so.

Those who make a claim, need to back it up with proof. You make a claim that it's not anthropogenic, so you need to provide proof. You claim that tons of scientists back you up, so surely then they have evidence and proof. So... by your own words, "you should be able to prove it. Do so."

FounDit wrote:
You haven't shown that humans are responsible for any progression of climate change. You simply say it is true but can't prove it. And yes, you want to make law simply out of fear.

While googling statistics on the effectiveness of mockery in debate, I found some more statistics relevant to this thread:

"The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans have caused most, and probably all of the rapid global warming over the past 60 years. Approximately 97 percent of climate experts and peer-reviewed climate science studies agree." from source.

And still, throughout this whole thread, you still haven't posted a single piece of evidence in favour of your side of the debate.

FounDit
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:24:17 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,725
Neurons: 51,343
The Appeal to Authority fallacy -- the IPCC says it, so you believe it. But what they say has been, and is being, disputed by other scientists.

When someone makes an accusation, the burden of proof lies with them. It's not the responsibility of someone who hears the accusation to prove it didn't happen.

It's no different than someone accusing a person of a crime. The accuser must be the one who presents the evidence of the truth of the accusation, not a bystander who hears the accusation.

The jury then hears both sides of the case and makes a decision. If you only listen to one side, and are influenced by their fear, then you will make a decision based on fear.

As Epiphileon pointed out, people who live in fear of death often turn to religion and gods. People who do not hold with religion and gods more often turn to government out of that same fear. Climate Change believers such as yourself consistently state your fear of death of the population and the planet, and so you turn to government as a substitute Authority (Father figure) for your salvation.

When decisions are based on fear rather than logic and reason, illogical conclusions are the result. In this case, the illogical conclusions are that we actually can alter the climate, and that we are actively doing so. At the same time, the evidence is clear that we cannot do either one. We can't make it hotter, or colder anywhere on the globe. We can't make it rain, snow, or stop rain or snow anywhere on the globe.

You choose to live in fear, I choose not to. Life constantly presents us with problems, and we continually overcome those problems through ingenuity, and inventiveness, imagination and creativity. We will no doubt continue to do so, regardless of the fears of many in our population. I don't for a minute believe doomsday is upon us. And that's my opinion after listening to both sides of the evidence for nearly 50 years.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:29:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/

As it stands now, only about 15 percent of the CO2 produced is being offset by forests. And to make matters worse, deforestation is causing millions of hectares of carbon trapping trees to be destroyed every year, releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and contributing as much as 25 percent to the causes of global warming...
Focusing on carbon emissions is only half the battle – or 74 percent of total emissions to be exact – but, focusing on the percentage of total emissions is extremely misleading because it ignores global warming potential altogether.
We’ve seen that methane, which accounts for only 14 percent of emissions worldwide, traps up to 100 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 5-year period. This means that even though carbon dioxide molecules outnumber methane 5 to 1, this comparatively smaller amount of methane is still 19 times greater a problem for climate change over a 5 year period, and 4 times greater over a 100 year period.
To put it another way, any methane molecule released today is 100 times more heat-trapping than a molecule of carbon dioxide, or potentially even higher according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
With the UN establishing various tipping points for irreversible climate change damage on the horizon, it’s time that methane enters mainstream consideration. And better yet, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that livestock production is responsible for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while other organizations like the Worldwatch Institute have estimated it could be as much as 51 percent – it’s time that we look beyond our gas tanks and on to our plates.


I eat meat and certainly don't like to hear this. But we've already cut down and eat a lot more only plant based meals than we used to eat. It is no real hardship even though my food reactions are to foods that are plant based because of pollen allergy and cross reactions to food. Just takes a bit more planning. And it cut our grocery bill! Just think of the difference we could make if all who can afford meat just cut down a bit. The poorer nations can't afford meat and it is getting almost too expensive for developed nations. Maybe that is how to get meat eating cut - by using the pocketbook.
::::
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/trump-admin-proposes-rollback-of-methane-rules-to-save-industry-484-million/

To add to his list of dismantling regulations meant to curb pollution, the US president's latest assault on the environment is to try to get relaxed the regulations about the emission of methane - to save the almighty dollar with great expense to the environment.

That's what this whole argument of denial is about - politics and money. It has nothing to do with reality or scientific facts.



The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 12:33:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
What chutzpah, FD. I produced the incontrovertible scientific facts and figures you were "so eagerly awaiting", and you dismiss them with your same tired argument that other "scientists" disagree - "scientists" you've never given facts for their reasoning nor listed to prove they even exist.

You keep bringing a psychological argument to a scientific topic.That's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. And from other threads it is evident you do not understand how science even works.

You cannot prove the very reliable IPPC facts and statistics are wrong - probably will never even understand the complicated science. Since I challenge you to prove the causes of climate change are not anthropogenic, the burden of proof is now on you. You can't assume the right to be the challenger.

As for your "appeal to authority fallacy" you are doing exactly the same thing by citing "scientists" who disagree.

:::

Using mainstream climate scientists for facts/proof that climate change is anthropogenic is a fallacy of authority - according to FD.

Using alternative scientists for views that climate change is from natural cycles is NOT a fallacy of authority - according to FD because he does just that.

Therefore according to FD, alternative scientists are not authorities. Whistle Whistle Whistle

:::

The future generation will damn those who were complacent and complicit in trying to hinder those who are inspiring innovation for mitigation and for egging on the US president's retracting of regulations to prevent pollution - such as the latest of his relaxing the emission of methane regulations to save the almighty dollar with great expense to the environment.

I remember from the past the scientist Wobbles, who was a poster on TFD who had terminal cancer. I miss him. He once said that he never argues with amateurs who deny anthropogenic climate change facts. I am going to take his advice. It is NOT a matter of fear. It is concern that is causing action. The evidence is there, the scientists and the world have moved on, and there is nothing more to say to those who stick their heads in the sand because they fear the reality. Anyhow, their arguments have nothing to do with science but are purely money and politics motivated.

So go back down your rabbit hole all by yourself, FD. There's plenty of space there for one. Over and out.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
will
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 1:38:09 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,144
Neurons: 4,710
This thread reminds me of an equally well intentioned one from a while ago, during a particularly bilious bout of creationism, that attempted to outline the evidence for evolution. The outcome was pretty much the same, just as frustrating and ultimately pointless – pointless as far as reaching mutual agreement on the actual facts; it’s always worth offering up information for others to take or leave as they choose, and recognising and highlighting flawed arguments is good practice for those occasions when both parties are interested in productive debate.

The problem with attempting to use scientific reasoning to disprove non-scientific ideology is that the two are simply incompatible, plus it wrongly gives the latter the appearance of being on an equal scientific footing.

The science on this issue is settled; the Earth's climate is warming and human activities are the primary cause. There is still debate within the scientific community over details, as is always the case in science, but the current scientific consensus on anthropic climate change is overwhelming – approaching 100% correlating to specific expertise.

It’s pointless to cherry-pick and cite supposed ‘scientists’ who disagree (as if the facts rely on a show of hands) if that disagreement cannot be backed up by evidence that survives scientific scrutiny. If new evidence should ever point in a different direction, then scientists will have no choice but to follow the evidence and the current overwhelming consensus will diminish. This is how the scientific method and peer review works.

FounDit cites books that have been written, showing the science is ‘wrong, manipulated, incorrect, or politically motivated’… well, books have been written to prove the pyramids of Giza were built by an alien civilisation; there’s an entire industry based on the pseudo-science that rejects vaccines and medicine in general; the teaching of evolutionary theory has been forced to defend itself in the courthouse on several occasions. So what?

To believe that the current consensus, including every single scientific body of national and international standing, is in some way formed on science that is wrong, manipulated, incorrect, or politically motivated is frankly ludicrous. A conspiracy to misrepresent the evidence, or misuse scientific checks and balances, on this scale, would be impossible to orchestrate – even if the apparent ‘motives’ were not so unimaginable.

FounDit also claims many corporations and scientific bodies rely on government funding and go along with the beliefs of those in current political power to keep their funding.

Politicians, in general, have been dragged kicking and screaming to the point we have today, where every single Government on the planet (the USA’s actual position is still not clear) is finally in vocal agreement with the science. Yet still, most governments are failing to meet the targets they signed up to, choosing instead the expedience of sticking to the fossil fuel economies we current rely on. The idea that the scientific consensus – and every multi-national corporation, including ExxonMobil – has been manipulated by some cabal of hippies intent on forcing leftist politics on the world is laughable; it’s tin-foil-hat-wearing paranoia… and we’re the ones living in fear. Think

FounDit’s contributions have made clear, climate change denial has no place in a science sub-forum.


.


FounDit
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 4:34:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,725
Neurons: 51,343
will,

So you don't think a public forum should allow discussions, or opinions, on matters of science by non-scientists — even on a public topic specifically titled as Science and Technology?

How very tolerant and inclusive of you...Applause

And BTW, you should at the least get the topic correct: I don't deny the climate changes, I deny that it's been proven that we humans are capable of making that happen.

So now folks have both sides presented and can make up their own minds, perhaps even do a bit of investigation themselves if there is a question in their minds. That is, after all, what public discussion is all about, in spite of the efforts by some to prevent it.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:11:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Ruth, in my researching I have come across some options scientists are looking at for mitigation - here's a link as an idea for that.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/482/cleaning-the-air-would-limit-short-term-climate-warming/

What bothers me is that this report is from 2011 and I don't know if anyone even listened. It was carried out by: The United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization convened the assessment, which was coordinated by the Stockholm Environmental Institute in York, UK and led by scientists from NASA GISS, the European Commission's Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy, the Asian Institute of Technology in Bangkok, Thailand, Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego, and the Catholic University of Chile in Santiago, Chile.

Eliminating a certain percentage of black carbon and ozone from the atmosphere with just a hand full of measures would help a great deal - up to half the warming over the next forty years. These are two substances that affect both air quality and climate negatively.

"For black carbon, for example, we looked at the impact that replacing traditional cook stoves with cleaner-burning options, putting particle filters on vehicles, or banning the burning of agricultural waste might have. For ozone, we looked at measures like fixing leaky gas pipes, limiting methane emissions from mines, upgrading wastewater treatment systems, and aerating rice paddies...I found it remarkable that for incomplete combustion, which gives you black carbon, a group of just nine measures was able to pull down the emissions by about 70 to 80 percent. And all of the technologies already exist. There's no technological barrier whatsoever to reducing black carbon...


Over the long-term, carbon dioxide increases are the primary driver of climate change. In order to mitigate climate change, there is no way we can ignore or overlook carbon dioxide. But we could make a major dent in climate change in the near term by controlling black carbon and ozone...


Why have we not heard more about this? I know they successfully influenced the ozone layer and are talking about methane, but where's the hype about changing the production levels of black carbon? Did I just miss it?

I got the link re black carbon etc. from the NASA discussion about "Solutions" on the following link at the bottom where there are several other related articles too.

https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/

. Always a good idea to look for solutions to problems...

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:17:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
And also when I can - in my next post - there will be just a glimpse of how local governments are reacting to help with their individual problems that are occurring because of climate change.

The people of the US Carolinas are grateful that Hurricane Florence has been downgraded to winds of only Category 2, but they are still expecting a lot of flooding and many billions of dollars of damage. I wonder if they are looking at new ways to adapt to increasingly ferocious storms.

https://www.livescience.com/63571-hurricane-florence-bigger-due-to-climate-change.html

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 2:43:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 989
Neurons: 487,250
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
So now folks have both sides presented and can make up their own minds, perhaps even do a bit of investigation themselves if there is a question in their minds. That is, after all, what public discussion is all about, in spite of the efforts by some to prevent it.


And still, throughout this whole thread, you haven't posted a single piece of evidence in favour of your side of the debate.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 8:55:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 525
Neurons: 2,727
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Temperature on planet Earth



Don't worry, we are still well below even the temperature maximum that was reached approximately 100 000 years ago during the previous relative warming, let alone earlier periods when climate on planet Earth was much warmer and nicer than what it is now.

So I keep maintaining we better now concentrate on real problems that we have plenty.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 10:04:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
So now folks have both sides presented and can make up their own minds, perhaps even do a bit of investigation themselves if there is a question in their minds. That is, after all, what public discussion is all about, in spite of the efforts by some to prevent it.


And still, throughout this whole thread, you haven't posted a single piece of evidence in favour of your side of the debate.


Lotje, he also did not add honest discourse. He has learned, I guess, not to read or try to comment/refute facts presented by someone who obviously reasons/argues/refutes with ease his ideological arguments with scientific facts. And then says "some" try to prevent public discussion when it is he who refused to answer. Not responding is his prerogative, but anyone reading the whole thread will not be tipped in favour of his philosophical argument in a scientific discussion when he did not address facts by many posters that disagreed with his concepts. BTW - Will's topic is accurate: "The science on this issue is settled; the Earth's climate is warming and human activities are the primary cause."

I do recommend that folks do investigation for themselves - it is the only way to critical thinking.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 10:12:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,400
Neurons: 48,082
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
So complacency is fine with you, Kirill, when 3000 American people died in Puerto Rico storms because of unpreparedness and inefficiency, with FEMA money rerouted to US border protection? And there are many more unprecedented monster storms appearing all over the world.

I reiterate what Ruth wrote: "And, I have heard nothing to indicate why available best, valid, scientific evidence, for what appears to be a growing problem of unprecedented proportions should not be used to guide decision making. There has been no reply: no guidance at all for rising sea levels, increasing ranges of vectors for tropical diseases, increasing scarcity of potable water, increasing heat-related deaths."

Add increasingly and unprecedented large storms and rainfalls with their flooding, larger, more frequent, and more out-of-control wildfires, drought, pollution driven deaths, plastic killing sea life, wildlife becoming extinct in unprecedented droves as their habitats and food decrease etc.

As promised these few following links give a minimal idea as to what governments are facing and the actions they are trying to take to mitigate their own individual perturbations in their own countries. Each country has different problems that need to be addressed and it was interesting to me to read about what exactly Canada's problems are/will be. But it is encouraging that all governments except the US federal one have realized they need to act now.


https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-04-18-earth-day-2018-10-concerning-things-future-of-planet (it takes a while for this link to come up.)

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/local.html

http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Environment/Special-Topics/Climate-Change.aspx

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/06/local-government-climate-change-plans

https://mg.co.za/article/2015-03-20-00-responding-to-climate-change-in-south-africa

https://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/responses/management/ droughts

https://globalnews.ca/news/4439399/b-c-government-announces-new-wildfire-prevention-program-focused-on-first-nations-and-local-governments/

There are lots more links of ways the world is coping practically with changes to the environment - if anyone is interested enough to search online.



The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.